this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2025
17 points (90.5% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

7785 readers
509 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
17
We need to grow the economy. We need to stop torching the planet. Here’s how we do both. | Let’s fix the two massive efficiency sinks in American life. [Meat & cars] (www.vox.com)
submitted 3 weeks ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] compostgoblin@piefed.blahaj.zone 13 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Hot take: we don’t actually need to grow the economy. We need to disambiguate growth and development. We don’t need to build data centers to make tech billionaires richer, we need more maternal health wards, community solar, and free school lunches. Those just don’t make rich people richer. We should instead orient our economy around meeting every human’s basic needs without overshooting environmental limits.

[–] karashta@piefed.social 8 points 3 weeks ago

This. Growth for the sake of growth is literally the logic of cancer cells.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The economy-as-total-spending model definitely has its limitations, and solving those distributional issues is a way to increase public well-being without increasing total consumption

[–] compostgoblin@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 weeks ago

I am a fan of Kate Raworth’s Doughnut Economics, I think she does a good job illustrating what that sort of economy might look like